United States v. Christopher Kim

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AKA No. 12-56922 Seal A, Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02788- v. ABC-PLA

CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim, AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE, INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM; YOUNG AI KIM, Claimants-Appellees,

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG, Intervenor-Appellee,

and

CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located at, AKA Seal A, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-55555 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-02788- ABC-PLA CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim, AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE, INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM; YOUNG AI KIM, Claimants-Appellees,

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG; ERIC HONIG, Intervenors-Appellees,

and

CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located at, AKA Seal A, Defendant. UNITED STATES V. KIM 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-55556 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-02788- ABC-PLA CHRISTOPHER KIM, AKA Chris Kim, AKA KJ Kim, AKA Kyung Joon Kim; BORA LEE; OPTIONAL ORDER CAPITAL, INC., AKA Optional Ventures; FIRST STEPHORA AVENUE, INC.; ERICA M. KIM; ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT, LLC; SE YOUNG KIM; YOUNG AI KIM, Claimants-Appellees,

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG; ERIC HONIG, Intervenors-Appellees,

and

CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located at, Defendant.

Filed November 30, 2015

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, N. Randy Smith, and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Opinion filed August 13, 2015, is amended as follows:

Slip opinion page 19: after add the following as a footnote:

With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the motion of Americans for Forfeiture Reform for sua sponte rehearing en banc and for court appointment as amicus curiae. The motion is DENIED as moot.

On October 2, 2015, the parties to this case filed a Notice of Settlement. In the Notice, the parties requested that this court’s mandate be issued. We GRANT the parties’ request; therefore, no further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed in response to the amended petition.

A certified copy of this order shall constitute the mandate of this court.